United States v. Jerry Coleman ( 2020 )

Case: 19-40488 Document: 00515553074 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 4, 2020
No. 19-40488
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Jerry Lynn Coleman,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:17-CR-83-1
Before Clement, Higginson, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jerry Lynn Coleman was convicted after a jury trial of possessing a
firearm after a felony conviction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),
possessing with intent to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C. § 841(a), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 19-40488 Document: 00515553074 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 19-40488
crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He was sentenced to a total of 156
months in prison and five years of supervised release.
Prior to the parties submitting briefs in this appeal, Coleman moved
in the district court to relieve appointed counsel and for the appointment of
substitute counsel. After briefing was completed in this case, the district
court transferred the motion to this court, and based upon Coleman’s
motion, appointed counsel moves to withdraw. Because neither Coleman
nor counsel has shown that there is a conflict of interest or that the interests
of justice require relief of counsel, we deny the motions. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A(c); Fifth Circuit Plan Under the Criminal Justice
Act § 5(B).
On appeal, Coleman challenges the denial of his motion to suppress.
Specifically, he argues that the police had no legal basis for the initial traffic
stop of his car and that the stop was unconstitutionally prolonged to search
for evidence that was unrelated to the purpose of the original stop.
When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we review
factual findings for clear error and conclusions of law de novo. United States
v. Pack, 612 F.3d 341, 347 (5th Cir. 2010). The clearly erroneous standard is
particularly deferential where, as here, “denial of a suppression motion is
based on live oral testimony . . . because the judge had the opportunity to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” United States v. Gibbs, 421 F.3d 352,
357 (5th Cir. 2005). In addition to deferring to the district court’s factual
findings, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing
party. See Pack, 612 F.3d at 347.
In this case, the 911 caller who reported that Coleman was driving
erratically was both identified and reliable, see United States v. Gomez, 623
F.3d 265, 269 (5th Cir. 2010), and the arresting officers subsequently
observed Coleman driving left of center and making a wide turn. The district
2
Case: 19-40488 Document: 00515553074 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/04/2020
No. 19-40488
court therefore did not clearly err in determining that the officers had a
reasonable suspicion that Coleman was driving while intoxicated and that the
initial stop of his car was justified. See Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393,
396-404 (2014); Gomez, 623 F.3d at 269. Further, the duration of the traffic
stop was not prolonged past what was necessary to dispel the reasonable
suspicion giving rise to the stop because, as reflected by the videotape of the
stop, law enforcement discovered marijuana in the car in plain view during
the course of their investigation and prior to the completion of the requisite
check on Coleman’s license. See Pack, 612 F.3d at 350; United States v.
Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 507-08 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
With respect to sentencing, Coleman contends the district court
violated the Sixth Amendment by relying on acquitted conduct in imposing a
two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(4). As he concedes,
his claim is foreclosed by United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 157 (1997); he
contends, however, that Watts was undermined by United States v. Booker,
543 U.S. 220 (2005). That claim is also foreclosed. See United States v.
Farias, 469 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2006).
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
3